Michael Moores shameful display

noahjnoahj
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/s...n/1259124.html





I know that many of you may agree with what he had to say, but any respect that I had for him had long since evaporated and this was the final nail in the coffin. I will never view another film by him again. Shameful.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 61
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    I disagree, surprise!
  • Reply 2 of 61
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    after reading that report on how he completely manipulated reality for his Bowlling for Columbine "documentary" i lost all respect for him anyway.
  • Reply 3 of 61
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    I'd like to hear him defend himself first. It's still a very good movie.
  • Reply 3 of 61
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    after reading that report on how he completely manipulated reality for his Bowlling for Columbine "documentary" i lost all respect for him anyway.



    What report? Could you provide a link? I actually liked that movie because it wasn't the typical "guns are bad" story you hear from the liberal media (which I don't disagree with, but it was refreshing not to hear it again...).
  • Reply 5 of 61
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    he's an a-hole for doing that. can't we get away from the war for a few hours and enjoy the oscars? well i don't watch them but if i did i'd be even more pissed. i wrote an email to him, he gets thouusands of emails a day and after that happened he probably didn't even read mail. oh well i felt better



    i've never cared for him anyway, though i did want to se bowling for columbine. not sure if i will see it now
  • Reply 6 of 61
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    here



    see this link for details. He's pathetic actually.



    the NRA section was the worst i guess. took a pile of lines out of context, some from entirely different speeches then spliced it to make it sound really bad.



    you could do that with anyone on any topic.



    as an aside, i watched the movie and liked it, but was surprised by some of the stuff these people were supposed to be saying. after reading up on this, i realized why some quotes seemed off.



    kinda of ruins the whole point of a documentary when you make crap up, or edit the hell out of it to make it match your mindset.
  • Reply 7 of 61
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    I really liked his performance. Though I can see how maybe he abused a platform given to him, I like the balls on that guy to say what, at least I, but probably million others, are thinking, in that blunt and shock-provoking way that is just plain his... lovely. And then the smelly cheesiness of the oscar folk, trying to zap him out with that music. I mean, I realised today that I'm not an American (hehe), but I thought that giving the lifetime oscar or whatever to Kazan shows somewhat the political orientation of the oscar-fest, and shows that they are not entirely politics-less. It kind of makes you wonder why they gave Moore an Oscar in the first place, instead of ringing him up in some bullpen. So, now the tottering old academics try to sound-carpet mister moore off stage, and the world crying that the oscars is not a place for politics. Give me a break. I cannot help breaking out into maniacal laughter every time I hear that speech. Mr. Moore's speech is daily business in our fine Belgian parliament, and it is not confined to the left. But again. The US political spectrum begins to the right of the right-hand side's end of most of Europe's. Thanks for reading this.
  • Reply 8 of 61
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by der Kopf

    Mr. Moore's speech is daily business in our fine Belgian parliament...



    What a mature and professional parliament you must have.
  • Reply 9 of 61
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    What a mature and professional parliament you must have.



    Well, of course, they don't get sound-carpetted of the podium. You DO understand me, groverat? I'm saying that people actually have the right the go full frontal opposition-wise, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not so right now in your part of the world, or is it?
  • Reply 10 of 61
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    It's his right to say whatever he wants. Arguably worse was in 1993 when Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were presenters and decided to use their time on stage to express their opinions on the turning away of HIV positive Haitian refugees. At least Moore didnt have a script to follow. Or Richard Gere ranting about Tibet when he accepted his award.



    What Moore said was quite lame in itself, but the worst part was how he lured the other filmmakers up there for his own agenda. I'm sure they didn't expect him to go that far. I'm sure they regret it too.



    EDIT: And I do think that personal politics should be kept out of the Oscar's. It's not the right stage for that stuff. People attend to see an awards ceremony, not a political rally. Imagine if you went to a restaurant to eat and the waiter made you listen to his own little politcal tirade.
  • Reply 11 of 61
    colanderofdeathcolanderofdeath Posts: 1,261member
    Quote:

    I'm saying that people actually have the right the go full frontal opposition-wise, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is not so right now in your part of the world, or is it?



    You're wrong but we still love you anyway. After all, without hte Belgium parliament's unilateral usurping of national soveriegnty with their overreaching international human rights law(s) than we would have one fewer country to poke fun of for gross hypocrisy. We'd have to add a different word in front of Sprouts as well if your country did not exist
  • Reply 12 of 61
    shawnpatrickjoyceshawnpatrickjoyce Posts: 2,417member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NoahJ



    I know that many of you may agree with what he had to say



    What an instigator.



    My thoughts on the matter are the following: Like any other award recipient, Michael Moore was justified in speaking out against Bush. You have the podium. Let's hear what you have to say. Michael Moore was especially justified because what he said was what his movie for which he received the award was about. The problem was that Moore was a "bit" too outspoken. His comments didn't fit the atmosphere of thoughtful little speeches. All anti-war speeches at the oscar's invoked art in some way or another including Michael Moore's speech. But goddammit, did he have to be so blunt?
  • Reply 13 of 61
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    I think he's a self-centered jerk! Someone pointed out in the Oscars thread that when he was onstage, he NEVER even thanked the people who helped him get the Oscar. In fact, I don't think he even thanked the Academy. And why did he drag the other nominees up there (who may or may not agree with what he said)? Probably because he's too chicken to stand alone in his comments. All that, combined with the fact that he's so conceited as to put himself in each one of his documentaries (spotlight stealer), makes me have no respect for him whatsoever.
  • Reply 14 of 61
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    if you respect his work please read the link i posted. let me know what you think of his work when you're done.



    completely changed my opinion of him.
  • Reply 15 of 61
    shawnpatrickjoyceshawnpatrickjoyce Posts: 2,417member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    I think he's a self-centered jerk! Someone pointed out in the Oscars thread that when he was onstage, he NEVER even thanked the people who helped him get the Oscar. In fact, I don't think he even thanked the Academy. And why did he drag the other nominees up there (who may or may not agree with what he said)? Probably because he's too chicken to stand alone in his comments. All that, combined with the fact that he's so conceited as to put himself in each one of his documentaries (spotlight stealer), makes me have no respect for him whatsoever.



    Not a fan of Alfred Hitchcock or M. Night. Shymalayaayaaaa?
  • Reply 16 of 61
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    Ugh, Alcimedes, that article you linked to, which i read, and laughed at, ends with the line:

    Quote:

    The point is not that Bowling is unfair, or lacking in objectivity. One might hope that a documentary would be fair and objective, but nothing rules out a rousing polemic now and then.



    The point is far more fundamental: Bowling for Columbine is dishonest. It is fraudulent. It fixes upon a theme, and advances it, whenever necessary, by deception. It even uses the audio/video editor     to assemble a Heston speech that Heston did not give, and to turn sympathetic phrases into arrogant ones. You can't even trust the narrator to read you a plaque or show you a speech, for Pete's sake.



    Wow! A documentary lacking in OBJECTIVITY?!! OMFG! fancy that!



    Anyone with half a clue / and even those with NO clue, but who watch the occasional documentary realise that like the press (of whom documentary producers are a sub-group), documentaries are never "objective".



    They are as biased as the humans who produce them, and as slanted as the people who watch them.



    "Objective." ROTFL. The very act of editing destroys objectivity. What a documentarist leaves out is as important as what gets left behind. What, you want to watch a 900-reel, three year movie to ensure you are in possesion of 'all the facts'? To make sure 'the full context' of the movie-making process is there?



    Even if you watched ALL footage Michael Moore shot, which is laughable, you are still only watching what he shot. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FOOTAGE HE COULD HAVE SHOT, BUT DIDN'T?!! What about whatever was happening around the corner from where MM was shooting? Across the street?! Why didn't he interview EVERY American about what they thought, instead of a small handful? That's so... *gasp!*... biased!!!



    So don't link to articles on some backwater web site that point out that MM uses semantics and editing to make a point, because we already knew that.



    Next you're going to link to an article that suggests editorials are subjective.
  • Reply 17 of 61
    shawnpatrickjoyceshawnpatrickjoyce Posts: 2,417member
    !



    Where did you come from?
  • Reply 18 of 61
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    Not a fan of Alfred Hitchcock or M. Night. Shymalayaayaaaa?



    Haven't really seen much Hitchcock, and of the few M. Night movies I've seen, he only has cameos. Cameos are fine. Hell, he made the movie, might as well be in it for a couple minutes.



    But when you are ALWAYS the main character in some sort of twisted news magazine called a documentary....
  • Reply 19 of 61
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    I came from the theater, where I was acutely aware that I was watching a media montage that serves a potlitical end.
  • Reply 20 of 61
    shawnpatrickjoyceshawnpatrickjoyce Posts: 2,417member
    I meant that you usually don't post here but should do so more often.
Sign In or Register to comment.